Highlights:
CNBC Headline: “Trump Nominates Brett Kavanaugh To The Supreme Court.” [CNBC, 7/9/18]
October 2018: New York Times: Kavanaugh Was Confirmed By The Senate With One Of The “Slimmest Margins In American History.” According to the New York Times, “Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh was confirmed to the Supreme Court on Saturday by one of the slimmest margins in American history, locking in a solid conservative majority on the court and capping a rancorous battle that began as a debate over judicial ideology and concluded with a national reckoning over sexual misconduct.” [New York Times, 10/6/18]
September 1994: Kenneth Starr Announced That Brett Kavanaugh And Would Assist With The Whitewater Investigation. According to the Washington Post, “Newly named Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr announced yesterday that he has hired a prominent Democratic lawyer to continue the Washington phase of the Whitewater investigation and promoted a member of his predecessor's legal team to be his deputy on the Little Rock, Ark., aspects of the probe. […] He will be assisted by two young Washington lawyers, Alex M. Azar II and Brett M. Kavanaugh, both Yale Law School graduates who served as law clerks for conservative judges, Azar for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and Kavanaugh for Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.” [Washington Post, 9/13/94]
Kavanaugh Wrote Part Of The Starr Report That Included Graphic Descriptions Of Clinton’s Sexual Relationship With Lewinsky. According to NBC News, “Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh suggested that attorneys preparing to question President Bill Clinton in 1998 seek graphic details about the president's sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
The questions are part of a memo in which Kavanaugh advised Independent Counsel Ken Starr and others not to give the president ‘any break’ during questioning. He suggested Clinton be asked whether he had phone sex with Lewinsky and whether he performed specific sexual acts.” [NBC News, 8/20/18]
Schumer Cited Kavanaugh’s Role In Whitewater, The Florida Recount, And The Bush Administration In Describing His Opposition To His Appointment To The D.C. Circuit Court Of Appeals. According to the Associated Press, “Democrats agreed on Kavanaugh's skills and personality, but said they were concerned that he would continue to advocate for the Republicans from the bench. ‘From the notorious Starr report, to the Florida recount, to this president's secrecy and privilege claims, to post-9/11 legislative battles including the Victims' Compensation Fund, to controversial judicial nominations, if there's been a partisan political fight that needed a good lawyer in the last decade, Brett Kavanaugh was probably there,’ Schumer said.” [Associated Press, 4/27/04]
Christian Science Monitor: When Bush Nominated Kavanaugh He “Had No Judicial Experience, Little Courtroom Experience, And … Worked On Some Of The Most Disturbing Issues For Democrats.” According to Christian Science Monitor, “When President Bush first nominated his staff secretary, Brett Kavanaugh, to a vacancy on the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2003, critics said he must be spoiling for a fight. The nominee had no judicial experience, little courtroom experience and also worked on some of the most disturbing issues for Democrats: the impeachment report on President Clinton and the Florida recount in the 2000 presidential election. As a senior official in the Bush White House, Mr. Kavanaugh also has helped pick and prep other controversial judicial nominees.” [Christian Science Monitor, 5/11/06]
2014: Kavanaugh Said The President Did Not Have To Follow Laws He Or She Deemed Unconstitutional “Until A Final Court Order Says Otherwise” And That The Executive Does Have To Follow Laws Regulating The Executive Branch. In a speech in 2014, Brett Kavanaugh said: “That certainly means that the Executive has to follow and comply with laws regulating the executive branch - at least unless the President deems the law unconstitutional, in which event the President can decline to follow the statute until a final court order says otherwise. In other words, the Executive does have to follow laws regulating the executive branch.” [Notre Dame Law Review, 2014]
Kavanaugh Suggested That A Sitting President Could Not Be Indicted By An Independent Counsel And That Congress Should Play The Primary Role In Investigating A President’s Conduct. According to remarks Brett Kavanaugh made at the “Independent Counsel Statute Future Forum” in February 1998, moderator Mark Touhey asked him, “What is the implication of your point if a sitting president cannot be indicted during a term of office?” Kavanaugh responded, “The implication is that congress has to take responsibility for overseeing the conduct of the president from the first instance. The role I believe the founders envisioned and that’s the role that makes sense. If you look at the last twenty years, it makes no sense at all to have an independent council investigate the conduct of the president. To be sure most investigations are going to involve multiple subjects so we still need a criminal investigation ongoing but when it comes to looking at the conduct of the president it has to be the congress. Congress has to get in this game and not stop sitting on the sidelines.” [Transcript –Brett Kavanaugh at Independent Counsel Statute Future Forum, 2/22/98]
Kavanaugh Called On Congress to Defer Any Civil Or Criminal Investigations Of President Until They Were Out Of Office
2009: Kavanaugh Wrote That Congress Should Defer Civil Cases And “Criminal Prosecution And Investigation, Including From Questioning By Criminal Prosecutors Or Defense Counsel,” Against Sitting Presidents. In the Minnesota Law Review, Brett Kavanaugh wrote: “But the Court in Jones stated that Congress is free to provide a temporary deferral of civil suits while the President is in office. Congress may be wise to do so, just as it has done for certain members of the military. Deferral would allow the President to focus on the vital duties he was elected to perform. Congress should consider doing the same, moreover, with respect to criminal investigations and prosecutions of the President. In particular, Congress might consider a law exempting a President—while in office—from criminal prosecution and investigation, including from questioning by criminal prosecutors or defense counsel.” [Minnesota Law Review, 2009]
Dr. Christine Blasey Ford Alleged That Kavanaugh Assaulted Her In The 1980s When They Were Teenagers. According to the Washington Post, “Earlier this summer, Christine Blasey Ford wrote a confidential letter to a senior Democratic lawmaker alleging that Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her more than three decades ago, when they were high school students in suburban Maryland […] Speaking publicly for the first time, Ford said that one summer in the early 1980s, Kavanaugh and a friend — both ‘stumbling drunk,’ Ford alleges — corralled her into a bedroom during a gathering of teenagers at a house in Montgomery County. While his friend watched, she said, Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed on her back and groped her over her clothes, grinding his body against hers and clumsily attempting to pull off her one-piece bathing suit and the clothing she wore over it. When she tried to scream, she said, he put his hand over her mouth. ‘I thought he might inadvertently kill me,’ said Ford, now a 51-year-old research psychologist in northern California. ‘He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing.’ Ford said she was able to escape when Kavanaugh’s friend and classmate at Georgetown Preparatory School, Mark Judge, jumped on top of them, sending all three tumbling. She said she ran from the room, briefly locked herself in a bathroom and then fled the house.” [Washington Post, 9/16/18]
Deborah Ramirez Alleged That Kavanaugh Assaulted Her At Party At Yale University 35 Years Ago. According to the Washington Post, “[Ramirez] told the New Yorker that 35 years ago at Yale University, ‘Kavanaugh had exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away.’ She said she had drunk a fair amount of alcohol but remembered a male student shouting, ‘Brett Kavanaugh just put his penis in Debbie’s face.’ She said she had remained silent about the incident for many years because she blamed herself for drinking too much.” [Washington Post, 9/27/18]
Yale Classmate Max Stier Claimed He Saw Kavanaugh Assault A Classmate At A Dorm Party During His Freshman Year. According to the New York Times, “We also uncovered a previously unreported story about Mr. Kavanaugh in his freshman year that echoes Ms. Ramirez’s allegation. A classmate, Max Stier, saw Mr. Kavanaugh with his pants down at a different drunken dorm party, where friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student. Mr. Stier, who runs a nonprofit organization in Washington, notified senators and the F.B.I. about this account, but the F.B.I. did not investigate and Mr. Stier has declined to discuss it publicly. We corroborated the story with two officials who have communicated with Mr. Stier; the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say she does not recall the episode.” [New York Times, 9/14/19]
Kavanaugh Was Accused By Julie Swetnick Of Being At Parties Where Women Were Abuses, Inappropriately Touched, Made “Disoriented” With Illicit Substances, And “Gang Raped.” According to the New York Times, “Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh was accused on Wednesday by another woman of engaging in sexual misconduct at parties while he was a student at Georgetown Preparatory School in the 1980s. The allegation came from Julie Swetnick, 55, who like Judge Kavanaugh, 53, grew up in the Washington suburbs. In a statement posted on Twitter by her lawyer, Ms. Swetnick said she observed the future Supreme Court nominee at parties where women were verbally abused, inappropriately touched, made ‘disoriented’ with alcohol or drugs and ‘gang raped.’ She said she witnessed Judge Kavanaugh participating in some of the misconduct, including lining up outside a bedroom where ‘numerous boys’ were ‘waiting for their ‘turn’ with a girl inside the room.’ Ms. Swetnick said she was raped at one of the parties and believed she had been drugged, but did not directly accuse Judge Kavanaugh of raping her.” [New York Times, 9/26/18]
February 13, 2016: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Was Found Dead At A Resort In West Texas. According to the New York Times, “Justice Antonin Scalia, whose transformative legal theories, vivid writing and outsize personality made him a leader of a conservative intellectual renaissance in his three decades on the Supreme Court, was found dead on Saturday at a resort in West Texas. He was 79.” [New York Times, 2/14/16]
March 16, 2016: President Obama Nominated Appeals Court Judge Merrick Garland To The U.S. Supreme Court. According to the Washington Post, “President Obama nominated Appeals Court Judge Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, calculating that the highly regarded jurist might blunt some of the expected political attacks and ultimately embarrass Senate Republicans into dropping their fierce opposition to the nomination. Amid a swirl of speculation about whether Obama would use the vacancy to expand ethnic or gender diversity on the court, Obama picked Garland, the 63-year-old chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. A moderate who has been on the appellate bench for almost two decades, Garland has served presidents from both parties and was confirmed by the Senate 19 years ago.” [Washington Post, 3/16/16]
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell Refused To Consider President Obama’s Supreme Court Nominee Merrick Garland After The 2016 Election. According to the New York Times, “The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, on Sunday dismissed the possibility of Republicans considering President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee after the November election, even if a Democrat were elected president or Republicans lost their majority. In doing so, Mr. McConnell tried to shut the door on a scenario that some Republicans in the Senate have said could allow them to prevent a more liberal jurist than Mr. Obama’s nominee, Judge Merrick B. Garland, from reaching the court, should a Democrat win the White House.” [New York Times, 3/20/16]
February 1, 2017: Trump Nominated Neil Gorsuch For The Supreme Court. According to CNN, “President Donald Trump will nominate Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, Trump announced Tuesday night at the White House. The nomination of Gorsuch, a 49-year-old federal appellate judge from Colorado, gives Trump and Republicans the opportunity to confirm someone who could cement the conservative direction of the court for decades.” [CNN, 2/1/17]
April 7, 2017: Gorsuch Was Confirmed To The Supreme Court In A 54-45 Vote After Weeks Of Political Fighting. According to NBC News, “The Senate confirmed judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court Friday in a mostly party-line 54-45 vote that reflected weeks of bruising political fighting which deepened congressional divides and changed the nature of high court appointments in the future. Gorsuch, President Donald Trump’s first major court nominee, will fill the seat that has been vacant since Justice Antonin Scalia passed away in February of 2016. He will be officially sworn in on Monday morning.” [NBC News, 4/7/17]
In Order To Confirm Gorsuch, Republicans Changed Senate Rules To Allow Gorsuch And Future Supreme Court Nominees To Pass Through The Senate With A Simple 51-Vote Majority Instead Of A 60-Vote Threshold. According to NBC News, “When Democrats blocked the nomination on Thursday with a procedural filibuster, Republicans responded by making a dramatic and historic change in the Senate rules to allow Gorsuch and all future Supreme Court nominees to pass through the Senate with a simple 51-vote majority instead of the previous 60-vote threshold […] And that change could have far-ranging impacts for the future of the court itself. Removing the previous 60-vote threshold means that the majority party has less incentive to find nominees that will garner moderate support and more ideological judges will have an easier path to confirmation in the future when one party holds both the White House and the Senate majority. While Both Republicans and Democrats mourn a loss of collegiality, both sides — except for a few Democrats — voted along party lines to support their parties' escalation tactics.” [NBC News, 4/7/17]
Trump Nominated Amy Coney Barrett As Supreme Court Judge. According to the New York Times, “President Trump has selected Judge Amy Coney Barrett, the favorite candidate of conservatives, to succeed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and will try to force Senate confirmation before Election Day in a move that would significantly alter the ideological makeup of the Supreme Court for years.” [New York Times, 9/25/20]
Barrett Was A Member Of Faculty For Life At Notre Dame, An Anti-Abortion Group. According to the New York Times, “As a law professor, Judge Barrett was a member of Faculty for Life, an anti-abortion group, and wrote skeptically about precedent in Supreme Court rulings, which both sides in the abortion debate took to mean she would be open to revisiting Roe v. Wade.” [New York Times, 9/25/20]
1998: Barrett Wrote A Law Review Article That Said Abortion Was “Always Immoral.” According to the Associated Press, “Barrett also has a long record of personal opposition to abortion rights, co-authoring a 1998 law review article that said abortion is ‘always immoral.’" [Associated Press, 5/5/22]
2006: Barrett Signed A Statement In A Newspaper Advertisement That Opposed “Abortion On Demand.” According to the New York Times, “Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, signed a statement in a 2006 newspaper advertisement opposing ‘abortion on demand.’ Judge Barrett was a law professor at Notre Dame at the time, and her name was among those of hundreds of residents of the region surrounding South Bend, Ind., known as Michiana. The statement appears to be her first direct public expression of her views on abortion, which are at the heart of much of the opposition to her nomination.” [New York Times, 10/1/20]
Barrett Could Not Recall More Than Three Cases She Had Worked On In Private Practice While Nominees Were Asked To Provide Details On 10. According to Mother Jones, “A graduate of Notre Dame law school, Barrett has almost no experience practicing law whatsoever—a hole in her resume so glaring that during her 7th Circuit confirmation hearing in 2017, Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee were dismayed that she couldn’t recall more than three cases she’d worked on during her brief two years in private practice. Nominees are asked to provide details on 10.” [Mother Jones, 10/23/20]
Barrett Had Never Tried A Case To Verdict Or Argued An Appeal In Court Before She Was Nominated To Be A Supreme Court Justice. According to Mother Jones, “Barrett has never tried a case to verdict or argued an appeal in any court, nor has she ever performed any notable pro bono work, even during law school.” [Mother Jones, 10/23/20]
Trump Forced Barrett’s Confirmation Before Election Day In Order To Further Shift The Ideological Makeup Of The Supreme Court. According to the New York Times, “President Trump has selected Judge Amy Coney Barrett, the favorite candidate of conservatives, to succeed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and will try to force Senate confirmation before Election Day in a move that would significantly alter the ideological makeup of the Supreme Court for years.” [New York Times, 9/25/20]
New York Times: “Mr. Trump Made Clear This Week That He Wanted To Rush His Nominee Through The Senate By Election Day.” According to the New York Times, “Mr. Trump made clear this week that he wanted to rush his nominee through the Senate by Election Day to ensure that he would have a decisive fifth justice on his side in case any disputes from the vote reached the high court, as he expected to happen.” [New York Times, 9/25/20]
June 2022: Roe V. Wade Was Overturned By The Supreme Court. According to NPR, “In a historic and far-reaching decision, the U.S. Supreme Court officially reversed Roe v. Wade on Friday, declaring that the constitutional right to abortion, upheld for nearly a half century, no longer exists.” [NPR, 6/24/22]
Trump’s Three Supreme Court Appointees Voted To Overturn Roe v. Wade. According to NPR, “Joining the Alito opinion were Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by the first President Bush, and the three Trump appointees — Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.” [NPR, 6/24/22]
2017: Judge Gorsuch On Roe: “A Good Judge Will Consider It As Precedent Of The U.S. Supreme Court Worthy As Treatment Of Precedent Like Any Other.” According to NPR, “Gorsuch took the uncontroversial line that Roe is a precedent. Precedent is the ‘anchor of law,’ he said. ‘It is the starting place for a judge.’ ‘I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed,’ he said. ‘A good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.’" [NPR, 5/3/22]
Kavanaugh On Roe: “It Is Settled As A Precedent Of The Supreme Court, Entitled The Respect Under Principles Of Stare Decisis.” According to NPR, “It is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis,’ he said. ‘The Supreme Court has recognized the right to abortion since the 1973 Roe v. Wade case. It has reaffirmed it many times.’" [NPR, 5/3/22]
Barret On Roe: But That Doesn't Mean That Roe Should Be Overruled.” According to NPR, **“**Roe is not a super-precedent because calls for its overruling have never ceased. But that doesn't mean that Roe should be overruled. It just means that it doesn't fall in the small handful of cases like Marbury v. Madison and Brown v. Board that no one questions anymore," she added.” [NPR, 5/3/22]
Kacsmaryk Was An Appointee Of Donald Trump. According to CNN, “US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, said Friday that he will suspend the FDA’s approval of a medication abortion pill called mifepristone, but he is pausing his ruling for seven days so the federal government can appeal.” [CNN, 3/15/23]
Kacsmaryk Suspended The FDA’S Approval Of The Medication Abortion Pill, Mifepristone. According to CNN, “US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, said Friday that he will suspend the FDA’s approval of a medication abortion pill called mifepristone, but he is pausing his ruling for seven days so the federal government can appeal.” [CNN, 3/15/23]
Kacsmaryk Was Deputy General Counsel For The First Liberty Institute, A Conservative Christian Legal Advocacy Group That Worked On Religious Liberty Litigation. According to CNN, “Prior to joining the bench, Kacsmaryk served for several years as deputy general counsel at the First Liberty Institute, a conservative Christian legal advocacy group, where he worked mainly on “religious liberty litigation in federal courts and amicus briefs in the US Supreme Court.” [CNN, 3/15/23]
With The 2018 Confirmation Of Kavanaugh To The Supreme Court, Trump Cemented A 5-4 Conservative Majority On The Bench After Kennedy’s Departure. According to Axios, “With the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court in 2018, President Trump cemented a solid conservative majority on the bench. Kavanaugh has the second-most conservative score (0.693) next to Justice Clarence Thomas (0.725), per a measure that score judges on a liberal-conservative spectrum. An analysis by political scientists Lee Epstein, Andrew D. Martin, and Kevin Quinn places judges on an ideological spectrum called the ‘Judicial Common Space.’ Conservative justices receive scores from 0 to 1, liberal justices from –1 to 0. Most liberal: Sonia Sotomayor (-0.521) Ruth Bader Ginsburg (-0.518) Elena Kagan (-0.302) Stephen Breyer (-0.280) John Roberts (0.089) Samuel Alito (0.317) Neil Gorsuch (0.486) Brett Kavanaugh (0.693) Clarence Thomas (0.725)” [Axios, 6/1/19]
April 7, 2017: Trump Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch Was Confirmed, Reestablishing The Court’s 5-4 Conservative-Liberal Split. According to Time, “Newly-minted Justice Gorsuch brings the highest court in the land back to the 5-4 conservative-liberal split it had before Scalia passed away in February 2016. In many ways, he’s a natural heir to Scalia: Gorsuch’s core judicial philosophy and writing style are strikingly similar to the man he’s replacing. Both are originalists, who interpret the Constitution based on the intent of the founders, and textualists, who look at the words of the document rather than legislative history. And both are known for their colorful language and incisive opinions.” [Time, 4/7/17]
Kavanaugh Provided The Decisive Vote In Eight 5-4 Rulings With A Traditional Ideological Split. According to Time, “Kavanaugh has already provided the decisive vote in eight 5-4 rulings with a traditional ideological split, including cases related to immigrant detention, the death penalty and sovereign immunity. In one of the most hotly anticipated cases of the term, he and the other conservatives decided that partisan gerrymandering of legislative districts isn’t reviewable by federal courts. And over the coming years, Kavanaugh will wield enormous power as the new, more conservative court takes up pivotal subjects like environmental regulations, guns and religious liberty.” [Time, 6/28/19]
In A Landmark 5-4 Ruling Along Ideological Lines, The Supreme Court Rejected Efforts To Curb Partisan Electoral Map Manipulations. According to Reuters, “In a major blow to election reformers, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday rejected efforts to rein in electoral map manipulation by politicians aimed at entrenching one party in power, a practice known as partisan gerrymandering that critics have said warps democracy. The justices, in a landmark 5-4 ruling that could reverberate through U.S. politics for years to come, ruled for the first time that federal judges do not have the authority to curb partisan gerrymandering - a decision that could embolden state lawmakers to intensify use of the practice. The court ruled along ideological lines in the decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, with its conservative members in the majority and liberals in dissent.” [Reuters, 6/27/19]
Chief Justice Roberts Stated That The Court Did Not Condone Gerrymandering, But Claimed That It Was An Innately Political Act Reserved For Legislatures, Not Courts. According to Reuters, “In the decision, Roberts said the court was not condoning excessive gerrymandering, which can yield election results that ‘seem unjust,’ but added that it is an inherently political act reserved for legislatures, not courts, whose review would appear political. The Constitution does not allow courts to forbid the practice, like it does racial discrimination in political map-drawing, Roberts said. ‘You can take race out of politics,” Roberts said from the bench, “but you can’t take politics out of politics.’” [Reuters, 6/27/19]
In A 5-4 Decision, The Supreme Court Broadened The Government’s Power To Detain Criminal Immigrants. According to NPR, “The U.S. Supreme Court, narrowly divided along ideological lines, ruled Tuesday that the government may detain — without a hearing — legal immigrants long after they have served the sentences for crimes they committed. The 5-4 decision, which reverses a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, is widely viewed as a victory for the Trump administration and its hardline immigration policies. It, like the Obama administration, had argued that the government has the authority to pick up and detain immigrants for deportation at any time, and is not required to act only immediately after a prison or jail sentence has been served.” [NPR, 3/19/19]
Justice Alito Majority Dissent: Immigration Law Mandates The Detention Of “Deportable Criminal Aliens” Even If It Is Years Later. According to NPR, “Writing for the conservative majority, Justice Samuel Alito, said immigration law mandates the detention of ‘deportable criminal aliens’ even if it is years later. Alito wrote that it is ‘especially hard to swallow’ the notion that ‘the alien must be arrested on the day he walks out of jail.’ ‘As we have held time and again, an official's duties are better carried out late than never,’ he wrote.” [NPR, 3/19/19]
In A 5-4 Ruling, The Supreme Court Issued An Order Allowing The Trump Administration To Deny Green Cards To Immigrants Who Are Considered Likely To Be Dependent On Government Benefit Programs. According to NBC News, “The Supreme Court issued an order Monday allowing the Trump administration to begin enforcing new limits on immigrants who are considered likely to become overly dependent on government benefit programs. The court voted 5-4. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan said they would have left a lower court ruling in place that blocked enforcement while a legal challenge works its way through the courts. The Department of Homeland Security announced in August that it would expand the definition of ‘public charge,’ to be applied to people whose immigration to the United States could be denied because of a concern that they would primarily depend on the government for their income.” [NBC News, 1/27/20]
During The Court’s 2024 Term, It Issued 11 Decisions That Were Decided 6-3 Along Ideological Lines. According to CBS News, “Of the decisions that were released, 27 were unanimous, and 22 were divided 6 to 3, with varying combinations of justices. Of those decisions, the justices divided 6-3 along ideological lines in half, Feldman and Truscott found. Chief Justice John Roberts was most frequently in the majority this term, followed by Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Barrett, according to their analysis.” [CBS News, 7/5/24]
The Conservative Majority Overturned Chevron Deference. According to CBS News, “In one of the most consequential rulings from the court, the conservative majority overruled a 40-year-old decision on regulatory power that said courts should defer to an agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute if it is reasonable. Known as Chevron deference, the framework effectively gave federal agencies the authority to enact rules and regulations to fill gaps in the laws passed by Congress. But after getting rid of that precedent, it will now be up to courts to decide whether an agency has acted within its authority, leaving judges to make calls about policy that had previously been decided by experts.” [CBS News, 7/5/24]
The Conservative Majority Ruled Former Presidents Had Immunity For Official Acts. According to CBS News, “In a 6-3 ruling along ideological lines, the Supreme Court said former presidents are entitled to immunity for official acts taken while in office. The court's conservative majority sent the case back to the federal district court overseeing Trump's case for additional proceedings, delaying the start of a trial and making it highly unlikely one will take place before the presidential election on Nov. 5.” [CBS News, 7/5/24]
The Conservative Majority Ruled That It Was Not A Crime For Public Officials To Accept Bribes After The Fact. According to PBS, “And in Snyder v. United States, a 6-3 court ruled that a federal law prohibiting bribes to state and local officials did not make it a crime for those officials to accept gratuities after the fact.” [PBS, 7/2/24]
Trump Appointed 54 Federal Appellate Justices During His Term. According to Pew Research, “Trump appointed 54 federal appellate judges in four years.” [Pew Research, 1/13/21]
Trump Appointed 174 District Judges During His Term. According to Pew Research, Trump appointed 174 district judges to the federal judiciary during his term. [Pew Research, 1/13/21]
Trump Appointed Three Supreme Court Justices During His Term, The Most Since Reagan. According to Pew Research, “Trump also had a major influence on the nation’s highest court. The three Supreme Court justices he appointed – Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – are the most by any president since Ronald Reagan.” [Pew Research, 1/13/21]
Trump Was Responsible For 28% Of Federal Judges In The U.S. By The End Of His Term. According to Pew Research, “As of Jan. 13, there were 816 active judges serving across the three main tiers of the federal court system: the Supreme Court, 13 regional appeals courts and 91 district courts governed by Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Trump appointed 28% of those judges.” [Pew Research, 1/13/21]
Half Of Trump’s Appellate Appointments Were Under 50 Years Old, With Six Under 40. According to the Christian Science Monitor, “In addition to being young – half of his appellate appointments were under 50, with six under 40 – and deeply conservative.” [Christian Science Monitor, 12/19/19]
February 2021: Trump Only Appointed Five Appellate Judges Older Than 55 And 20 Under The Age Of 45. According to Mother Jones, “In just one term, Trump appointed 54 appellate judges, of which six were in their 30s, 20 were under age 45 and only five were older than 55.” [Mother Jones, 10/23/20]
July 2020: The Federalist Society Helped Trump Push Through 218 Judicial Nominees, 85% Of Whom Were White And 76% Of Whom Were Male. According to Mother Jones, “By July 2020, the group had helped the GOP-controlled Senate ram through a record 218 Trump judicial nominees—85 percent of them white, and 76 percent male. Its singular focus on youth and ideological purity among the nominees has been instrumental in lowering the standards for judicial office.” [Mother Jones, 10/23/20]
May 18, 2016: Trump Unveiled A List Of 11 Judges He Would Consider Nominating To Fill Antonin Scalia’s Seat On The Supreme Court. According to CNN, “Donald Trump on Wednesday unveiled a list of 11 judges he would consider nominating to fill the seat of late Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court, an unusual move for a presidential candidate that underscores his efforts to appeal to conservatives. The list includes: Steven Colloton of Iowa, Allison Eid of Colorado, Raymond Gruender of Missouri, Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania, Raymond Kethledge of Michigan, Joan Larsen of Michigan, Thomas Lee of Utah, William Pryor of Alabama, David Stras of Minnesota, Diane Sykes of Wisconsin and Don Willett of Texas.” [CNN, 5/18/16]
Trump Told Republicans That The Federalist Society And Heritage Foundation Assisted Him In Creating The List. According to CNN, “Trump told Republican House leadership during a meeting on Capitol Hill last week that he would come out with a list, assisted by conservative groups The Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation, of judicial nominations he would make if he had the opportunity to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court, according to a source familiar with the meeting.” [CNN, 5/18/16]
Trump Stated He Would Appoint Judges “All Picked By The Federalist Society.” According to Breitbart, “Trump thought Romney would rather see Hillary Clinton as President than him […] ‘Yeah, he’d rather have – even though I’m going to appoint great judges. You know, we could have as many as five judges,’ Trump said, referring to potential Supreme Court appointments. ‘And she’s going to appoint super-radical liberals, and I’m appointing – you know, you saw the eleven names I gave. We’re going to have great judges, conservative, all picked by the Federalist Society.’” [Breitbart, 6/13/16]
By July 2020, The Federalist Society Was Responsible For Helping Trump Confirm 218 Judicial Nominees. According to Mother Jones, “By July 2020, the group had helped the GOP-controlled Senate ram through a record 218 Trump judicial nominees.” [Mother Jones, 10/23/20]
Trump Inherited A Large Number Of Vacancies In The Federal Courts And Relied On Conservative Groups Like The Federalist Society To Find Candidates. According to the Chicago Tribune, “The estimated 103 judicial vacancies that President Barack Obama is expected to hand over to Trump in the Jan. 20 transition of power is nearly double the 54 openings Obama found eight years ago following George W. Bush’s presidency […] Trump transition officials declined to comment on the process of selecting nominees, but incoming White House Counsel Don McGahn is expected to play a key role. Such groups as the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation have been working with the Trump team to suggest possible candidates.” [Chicago Tribune, 1/1/17]
Trump’s Three Supreme Court Nominees Had Federalist Society Ties. According to Teen Vogue, “Trump’s three eventual Supreme Court appointees — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — have or have had ties to the society, as do fellow conservative justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.” [Teen Vogue, 11/15/22]
At A January 2019 Federalist Society Gala, Mitch McConnell Highlighted That Trump Has Advanced The Groups “Judges Project” By Appointing Numerous Conservative Judges. According to the Washington Post, “To close the gala, McGahn and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell settle in armchairs below the giant Madison heads for an onstage tete-a-tete, during which they all but spike the football over the current pace of appointing conservatives to all levels of the federal judiciary — the ‘judges project,’ as McConnell calls it. At the appeals court level, in particular, Trump has made more appointments than all other presidents at the same point in their presidencies, according to research by Russell Wheeler, a visiting fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution.” [Washington Post, 1/2/19]
Head Of Federalist Society Was Invitee At Trump Event Celebrating Number Of Judges Appointed. According to the New York Times, “President Trump took a moment on Wednesday to celebrate his success confirming his judicial appointments, an achievement crucial to maintaining his hold on conservatives and on evangelical voters as he heads into an election year fighting off impeachment by the House. With another flurry of Senate judicial confirmations this week, the Trump administration will have placed 45 conservative judges on the nation’s appeals courts — the federal courts where most final rulings are issued. The tally means one-quarter of all appellate court judges will have been installed by Mr. Trump. […] “We are going to be, I think, just about No. 1 by the time we finish — No. 1 of any president, any administration,” the president enthusiastically told an East Room audience that included Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee as well as Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society and other conservative judicial activists who helped the White House identify and advance the judicial nominees. “This is really fantastic.” [New York Times, 11/6/19]
The American Bar Association Board Members Rated 28 Trump Judicial Nominees As “Not Qualified.” [Christian Science Monitor, 12/19/19]
Trump Nominee Sarah Pitlyk Was Confirmed To The U.S. District Court For The Eastern District Of Missouri. According to the Washington Post, “And in a near-party-line vote Tuesday, the Senate approved the nomination of Sarah Pitlyk, making the conservative lawyer the newest federal judge for the U.S. District Court in St. Louis. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) joined the Democrats to oppose Pitlyk. Every other Republican present voted for her.” [Washington Post, 12/4/19]
Sarah Pitlyk Was Unanimously Rated ‘Not Qualified’ For A Federal Judgeship Based On Her Lack Of Experience By The American Bar Association. According to Bloomberg Law, “Pitlyk was also unanimously rated “Not Qualified” for a federal judgeship based on her lack of experience by the American Bar Association committee that reviews judicial nominees. She is one of nine Trump judicial nominees rated unqualified by the ABA and the sixth to be confirmed.” [Bloomberg Law, 12/4/19]
Pitlyk Had Never Tried A Case As Lead Or Co-Counsel In A Civil Or Criminal Case, She Never Examined A Witness Or Took A Deposition. According to the Washington Post, “In a Sept. 24 letter to lawmakers, William Hubbard, chair of the ABA’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, wrote that Pitlyk’s ‘experience to date has a very substantial gap, namely the absence of any trial or even real litigation experience.’ ‘Ms. Pitlyk has never tried a case as lead or co-counsel, whether civil or criminal,’ Hubbard wrote. ‘She has never examined a witness. Though Ms. Pitlyk has argued one case in a court of appeals, she has not taken a deposition. She has not argued any motion in a state or federal trial court. She has never picked a jury. She has never participated at any stage of a criminal matter.’” [Washington Post, 12/4/19]
Pitlyk Was Anti-IVF And Made Inflammatory Declarations Claiming That Surrogacy Had “Grave Effects On Society.” According to the Washington Post, “Her critics have highlighted inflammatory declarations such as the one she made in an amicus brief opposing California’s protections of assisted reproduction technology, noted Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern. In the filing, Pitlyk asserted that ‘the practice of surrogacy has grave effects on society, such as diminished respect for motherhood and the unique mother-child bond.’ She has also argued that surrogacy ‘is harmful to mothers and children’ and is a ‘practice society should not be enforcing.’ Her position — that states should treat embryos like humans — would likely outlaw abortion, in vitro fertilization and surrogacy, Stern wrote.” [Washington Post, 12/4/19]
The Senate Confirmed Trump Judicial Nominee Lawrence VanDyke. According to the Bloomberg Law, “Lawrence VanDyke became President Donald Trump’s 50th appellate court appointment on Dec. 11 despite an American Bar Association assessment in which his peers called him ‘lazy, arrogant’ and ‘an ideologue’ in finding him unqualified for the job. The Republican-led Senate voted 51 to 44 to confirm VanDyke to a lifetime appointment, achieving a milestone for the president and adding to his push to reshape the judiciary with conservatives. Susan Collins of Maine was the only Republican to join Democrats in voting no on VanDyke, who will fill a Nevada seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.” [Bloomberg Law, 12/11/19]
American Bar Association On Trump’s Judicial Nominee Lawrence VanDyke: “Lazy, Arrogant” And An “Ideologue.” According to Bloomberg Law, “Lawrence VanDyke became President Donald Trump’s 50th appellate court appointment on Dec. 11 despite an American Bar Association assessment in which his peers called him ‘lazy, arrogant’ and ‘an ideologue’ in finding him unqualified for the job. The Republican-led Senate voted 51 to 44 to confirm VanDyke to a lifetime appointment, achieving a milestone for the president and adding to his push to reshape the judiciary with conservatives. Susan Collins of Maine was the only Republican to join Democrats in voting no on VanDyke, who will fill a Nevada seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.” [Bloomberg Law, 12/11/19]
The American Bar Association Committee Found VanDyke To Be ‘An Ideologue’ Lacking The Requisite Skills To Sit As An Appellate Judge. According to Bloomsburg Law, “A majority of the the ABA committee that reviews nominees found that he lacked the requisite skills to sit as an appellate judge. VanDyke’s peers called him ‘lazy, arrogant’ and ‘an ideologue,’ and raised concerns that he wouldn’t be able to treat members of the LGBT community fairly, William Hubbard, chairman of the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, said in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee. ‘There was a theme that the nominee lacks humility, has an ‘entitlement’ temperament, does not have an open mind, and does not always have a commitment to being candid and truthful,’ Hubbard said.” [Bloomberg Law, 12/11/19]
The Senate Confirmed Justin Walker, Trump’s Judicial Nominee To The U.S. District Court For Western District Of Kentucky. According to the Courier-Journal, “The U.S. Senate has confirmed President Donald Trump's nomination of University of Louisville law professor Justin Walker to a lifetime appointment as a federal judge. In a party-line vote, the Senate voted 50-41 Thursday afternoon to confirm Walker as a U.S. district judge for the Western District of Kentucky.” [Courier-Journal, 10/24/19]
The American Bar Association Committee Found Walker “Not Qualified” To Be A District Court Judge Because Had Never Tried A Case As Lead Or Co-Counsel. According to the American Bar Association, “write to offer a brief explanation of the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary’s ‘Not Qualified’ rating for Justin R. Walker. Our rating is based on the Standing Committee’s criteria as set forth in the Backgrounder. The Standing Committee believes that Mr. Walker does not presently have the requisite trial or litigation experience or its equivalent […] However, Mr. Walker’s experience to date has a very substantial gap, namely the absence of any significant trial experience. Mr. Walker has never tried a case as lead or co-counsel, whether civil or criminal. His recent co-counsel experience in a criminal pro bono case tried in the Western District of Kentucky did not include performance of any duties in the courtroom due to the Court’s rules prohibiting the appointment of two attorneys to try the case.” [American Bar Association, 7/30/19]
Trump Displayed A Pattern Of Attacking Judges And Courts For Rulings He Disagreed With Throughout His Presidential Campaign And Into His Presidency. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, “Donald Trump has displayed a troubling pattern of attacking judges and the courts for rulings he disagrees with — a pattern that began during his presidential campaign (and even before), and has continued into his presidency. This threatens our entire system of government. The courts are bulwarks of our Constitution and laws, and they depend on the public to respect their judgments and on officials to obey and enforce their decisions. Fear of personal attacks, public backlash, or enforcement failures should not color judicial decision-making, and public officials have a responsibility to respect courts and judicial decisions. Separation of powers is not a threat to democracy; it is the essence of democracy.” [Brennan Center, 2/14/20]
Trump Demanded That Justices Sonia Sotomayor And Ruth Bader Ginsburg Recuse Themselves From Anything Having To Do With “Trump Or Trump-Related Matters.” According to the New York Times, “President Trump lashed out at two liberal Supreme Court justices on Tuesday, escalating his battle with the judicial system to new heights despite entreaties by his attorney general to refrain from attacks that complicate the administration’s legal fights. Weighing in on a domestic matter as he began a day of ceremony, meetings and a joint news conference with Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India, Mr. Trump seized on a dissenting opinion last week by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and a years-old comment by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to demand that the two Democratic-appointed jurists recuse themselves from any cases involving him. Later Tuesday, he said the two justices should recuse themselves from hearing ‘anything having to do with ‘Trump or Trump-related.” [New York Times, 2/25/20]
Trump’s Comments Stemmed From A Dissent Issued By Justice Sotomayor Stating That The Trump Administration “Had Become Too Quick To Run To The Supreme Court” After Losses In The Lower Courts. According to the New York Times, “Justice Sotomayor issued her dissent issued last week against an order by the court allowing the Trump administration to proceed with a plan to deny green cards to immigrants who are deemed likely to become ‘public charges’ reliant on government aid programs. In her seven-page opinion, Justice Sotomayor wrote that the Trump administration had become too quick to run to the Supreme Court after interim losses in the lower courts. ‘Claiming one emergency after another, the government has recently sought stays in an unprecedented number of cases, demanding immediate attention and consuming limited court resources in each,’ she wrote. ‘And with each successive application, of course, its cries of urgency ring increasingly hollow.’” [New York Times, 2/25/20]
Trump Quoted Laura Ingraham In His Tweet Calling For Their Recusal. [Twitter,@realdonaldtrump, 2/24/20]
Trump Claimed That Judge Gonzalo Curiel Was “Totally Biased” And “Hates Trump.” [Twitter,@realdonaldtrump, 5/30/16]
In Response To Judge Gonzalo Curiel’s Orders In A Class Action Against Trump University, Trump Claimed That The Judge Was Biased Due To His “Mexican Heritage.” According to the Brennan Center, “Donald Trump said on CNN: ‘I’ve been treated very unfairly by this judge. Now, this judge is of Mexican heritage, I’m building a wall!’ Trump continued: ‘He’s a member of a society where – you know – very pro-Mexico and that’s fine, it’s all fine, but I think – I think – he should recuse himself.’” [Brennan Center, 2/14/20]
Trump Called The Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals “A Disgrace” After The Court Ruled That The Administration Must Accept Asylum Claims Regardless Of Where The Migrants Entered The Country. According to the Brennan Center, “In November 2018, Trump announced new rules that would bar anyone crossing the U.S.-Mexico border not through an official port of entry from receiving asylum. On November 20, Judge Jon Tigar of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ordered the administration to accept asylum claims regardless of where migrants entered the country. Trump called the decision ‘a disgrace,’ attacked Tigar as ‘an Obama judge,’ and critiqued the Ninth Circuit as ‘really something we have to take a look at because it’s not fair,’ adding, ‘That’s not law. Every case that gets filed in the Ninth Circuit we get beaten.’” [Brennan Center, 2/14/20]
Trump Stated That The Court Had “Obama Judges” And Was Not An Independent Judiciary. [Twitter, @realdonaldtrump, 11/21/18]
In February 2020, Trump Attacked Judge Amy Berman Jackson, The Judge Presiding Over The Roger Stone Case. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, “In February 2020, Trump attacked Judge Amy Berman Jackson, the judge who is presiding over his former adviser Roger Stone’s pending criminal case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Last November, Stone was convicted of lying to congress, witness tampering, and obstructing an investigation by the U.S. House of Representatives. The attacks came after the Department of Justice recommended a sentence of 7-9 years for Stone.” [Brennan Center, 2/14/20]
Trump Tweeted Questioning Judge Amy Berman’s Rulings In The Manafort, Gates, And Van Der Zwaan Cases. [Twitter, @realdonaldtrump, 2/11/20]